Episode 2320 CWSA 12/12/23 Lots Of Funny & Ridiculous News About Politics & Science. You'll Love It
My new book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Cyberattack, Backwards Science, Mark Hyman Sauna, 2020 Election Poll, President Trump, Democrat Hilarious Hysteria, Elizabeth Warren, Male Loneliness, Trump's Cellphone, Warrantless Searches, S.F. Defunding Police, Dean Preston, Virtual Border Wall, Asylum Laws, Hunter Biden Gun Charges, School Failures, Claudine Gay, Joel Pollack, Bill Ackman, Cenk Uygur, River To Sea Chant, IBM White Discrimination, AI Disappoints, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I doubt you'll ever have a better time in your life than the time we're going to spend here.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels which even your doctor can't understand, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank, tankard shells, just dine a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Oh, that's so good.
Savor it.
Savor it.
Well, if we have any technical problems today, it would be because I hear the Rumble network has been under some kind of persistent cyber attack.
So if we see any hiccups, it might be that persistent cyber attack.
Now, I need somebody to tell me if I'm insane, because I feel like, was it a day and a half ago, there was this gigantic story in the news that China had hacked into all of our major infrastructure and they were waiting to, if things got bad, they'd just turn off the country.
And I said to myself, I don't believe that story.
Did anybody see me post on X to hold your horses on that story?
Because I didn't believe it.
It's gone.
The story is gone.
I thought it was going to be like a World War III cyber story.
Completely disappeared from the news.
What happened?
I have no idea what happened.
I can't give you the answer to my own question.
Did it just disappear?
I have a hypothesis.
Here's my hypothesis.
There was something about that story that didn't sit right.
I didn't know what it was.
And I thought it might be what's left out.
So the story was that somehow we suddenly know that China has access to critical infrastructure via hackers.
And the idea is that if anything bad happens, such as conflict over Taiwan, China could just turn off our lights.
Here's the first question.
How would we have known that was China?
Are there hackers so bad that we can tell who's hacking us?
See, that's the thing I always wonder about.
How could you be such a good hacker that you could hack into the critical infrastructure of the United States, imagine the highest level of technical proficiency, but you would leave a trail?
Is that real?
I guess I don't know enough about the field to understand, do all hackers always leave a trail?
That doesn't feel right to me.
I'm seeing some people say yes.
How could that possibly be?
There's no way the hackers have figured out how to cover their tracks or redirect so it looks like somebody else.
I'm skeptical.
All right, here's the other thing about that story.
The part left out was, how badly has the United States already infiltrated Chinese systems?
Isn't that the big question?
So if you hear a story that, hey, China has already infiltrated our systems, they're not doing anything bad yet, but they could at any minute.
Doesn't that apply to us?
Infiltrating their systems?
Because aren't we better at it?
I mean, I don't know that that's true, but I've heard it said that the U.S.
is some level above the other countries in hacking.
So do you think that maybe the story went away because we would have had to admit we're doing the same thing?
Maybe the story went away because, wait for it, it's been true for 20 years.
What if it's been true for 20 years that China has been inside our systems And could take down the country anytime they want.
What if it's true that everybody's in everybody's systems?
And we don't know exactly who, where, or why, but you've got a lot of countries trying to hack a lot of other countries.
Wouldn't you expect that by now all of our systems are compromised?
All of the American systems, all of the Chinese systems, all of the British systems, all of the French, all of the Russians?
Now, here's why, oh, somebody said stop scaring me.
Here's why you shouldn't be scared.
There's no difference.
If this sounds like I just described a new thing that's a new risk, nope.
Nope.
Do you know why China won't turn off all the lights in the United States, even if they could?
Same reason they don't nuke us.
It's mutually assured destruction.
There's a reason they don't attack us.
It's a bad idea.
So the most logical situation is that everybody's getting ready to attack, but they don't plan to.
You know, it's just a mutually assured destruction.
So it's possible that the story was real-ish, but not new, and also completely balanced by what we're doing to prepare in the same way.
So it could be that the intelligence people said, hey, just take that story back.
We don't like that story out there.
It looks like some kind of coordinated takedown by the government.
Is that what you saw?
Or was it just never true?
Maybe the story was just never true and people were onto it early.
I don't know.
To me, it's a big mystery why this gigantic story that worried me for one evening is just gone.
Yeah, a little suspicious.
All right.
In my segment I call Backwards Science.
Backwards Science.
Mark Hyman, MD, was posting that scientists have looked at the health benefits of saunas.
And they look at Finland where people have been using saunas of various kinds for many years so they could get a good base for their study.
And they found that those who used the sauna two to three times a week had a 24% lower risk of death.
Wow!
And the hardcore users who went four to seven times a week had a 40% reduction in death compared to those who went for just one session in a week.
So I guess that proves that saunas are good for you.
Am I right?
It's proof.
The people who went to the saunas the most were clearly healthier than the others.
What?
What, that's not good enough for you?
But the evidence is right here.
The people who go to the sauna the most are the healthiest.
Oh, well, you skeptical doubters, you, that I have trained you so well.
What do you imagine there is that would be different about people who have all the time in the world to go to a fucking sauna?
You know why I don't use my sauna?
I have one.
I have one of those infrared dry sauna sinks.
And do you know I have never used it?
Never, not even once.
Too busy.
Too busy.
Doing stressful things.
I'm too busy getting cancelled and trying to save the world and doing live streams and streams and drawing cancelled comics and stuff.
Yeah, I don't have time for that shit.
You know how much healthier I would be if I had time, just even if I didn't do the sauna, you can take the sauna completely out of the story.
And you just said to me, Scott, you now have time to spend an hour doing nothing, uh, four times a week.
I'd be like, are you kidding me?
I've got an hour to do nothing four times a week.
I'll take it.
All right, so I do suspect that there is real science to the fact that these saunas are good for you.
I think it's real.
If I had to bet on it, I'd say, yeah, it's probably real.
But you have to watch out for this weird selection of the people they're looking at.
It's the same problem with the wine, right?
Remember, they used to say wine was good for you.
If you had one drink at night, you're healthier.
And I said, What is it about the people who can have one drink a night?
They have money.
That's a good signal for a long life.
And they have moderation.
They have the physical ability to moderate things that are hard to moderate.
If you just gave me all the people who can moderate things that are hard to moderate, I'll show you a long-living group of people.
Those are people who have some ability to do the right stuff.
Are you ready to have your brain just blown right off?
All right.
I've got a little preview of a survey that was embargoed, so you weren't supposed to hear this today, but I guess Glenn Beck mentioned it yesterday, so it's unembargoed because somebody did it publicly.
All right.
This is from Rasmussen.
Rasmussen is reporting it, and So who did, did they do this survey?
I think they were working with the Heartland Institute on this one.
All right.
So let me just, I'm just going to read it to you.
Okay.
So this one, I don't want to, I don't want to summarize it.
I'm just going to read you, you know, in the, in the words of Rasmussen here.
One in five mail-in voters admit they cheated in the 2020 election.
Just let that soak in a little bit.
This is based on a real current survey.
1 in 5, that's 20%, mail-in voters admit they cheated in the 2020 election.
Want some details?
Are we having fun yet?
Are we having fun?
Here's some details.
More than 20% of voters who used mail-in votes in 2020 admit they participated in at least one form of election fraud.
Some of them participated in more than one form.
So the 20% is a little bit understated because some of them broke the law in two different ways.
All right, let me go on.
21% of likely U.S.
voters who voted by absentee or mail-in ballots in the 2020 election say they fill down a ballot in part or in full on behalf of a friend or family member, such as spouse or child, while 78% say they didn't.
Now, you'll find out later that depending on the state, that could be illegal, so I don't think that's illegal everywhere.
30% of those who surveyed said they voted by absentee or mail-in ballot in the 2020 election.
19% of those who cast mail-in votes say a friend or family member filled out their ballot in part or in full.
19% said somebody else filled out their ballot.
Now again, it depends on the state.
What is illegal and what's not illegal is state dependent.
Furthermore, 17% of mail-in votes say that in the 2020 election they cast a ballot in a state where they no longer were a permanent resident.
Let me read that one again.
17% of mail-in voters said that in 2020 they cast a ballot in a state where they were no longer a permanent resident.
Now, let's put this in perspective.
These people were being asked to confess a felony.
It's a felony, right?
Is it?
Is election fraud a felony?
Or is it just a federal offense?
I don't know what the right word is.
But, can I ask you, show me in the comments, if somebody asked you if you'd broken a law, Even if you thought that you were going to be anonymous, would you answer that question and say you had broken the law?
How many of you would confess to breaking a law to a stranger on the phone?
I wouldn't, and I don't recommend it.
Don't recommend it at all.
But, so do you think that the numbers are understated?
Do you think there's any good chance that the number of people who are doing these bad things We're illegal things.
Maybe far greater than the number who are willing to admit it to a stranger on the phone in a recorded sense, in a way that their identity could absolutely totally be identified.
Now, we don't know, I don't know based on this survey, who people voted for, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if you confess to a felony to a stranger on a digital device, In a way that you could easily be located if that were their intention?
Probably a Democrat.
I'm just kidding.
Just joking.
I kid the Democrats.
I am a Democrat.
I'm a registered Democrat.
So I can say that.
I can say that because I am one.
Anyway, all of these practices are illegal, Harlan Institute officials noted.
The results of this survey are nothing short of stunning.
Said Justin Haskins, director of the blah blah blah.
For the last three years, Americans have repeatedly been told that the 2020 election was the most secure in history.
But if this poll's findings are reflective of reality, the exact opposite is true.
This conclusion isn't based on conspiracy theories or suspect evidence, but rather on the responses made by the voters.
Now, there's an important question that needs to be asked.
What does the division between Democrats and Republicans look like on this one?
And independents?
Because that matters, right?
If it turned out that there were just as many Republicans as Democrats, and they were cheating at the same rate, and they all voted absentee at the same rate, eh, maybe it all comes out in the wash.
But, what is the ratio of Democrats voting remotely, by mail-in ballot, Versus Republicans.
Does anybody know that ratio?
Is it like 3 to 1 or something?
It's like 4 to 1 or 3 to 1, right?
Somewhere in that neighborhood.
People are saying 4 to 1 and that feels right in my memory.
So let's say that the cheating level was the same.
There's no evidence, or at least I haven't dug into the cross tabs yet.
Say it was the same.
Wouldn't that mean that there was a four-to-one advantage to the Democrats in cheating?
Now, here's the fun part.
If you did the same survey, or a variant on the survey, and you did it in a battleground state that Trump lost narrowly, And all you did is say, all right, let's put the cheating into the mix.
Let's do the survey in just the state.
So you get more representative for the state.
You say to yourself, what is the percentage of Democrats cheating?
You have the percentage of Republicans that say that you, and then you just do the math and you could determine reasonably scientifically if the election was fair.
Now, I have to give this little caveat.
I'm not sure all this stuff should be illegal.
Does anybody have an objection to that?
I don't think it's the most inappropriate thing for somebody else to fill out your ballot.
If somebody came to me and said, hey Scott, do you care about politics?
And I say, no.
And you say to me, do you mind if I fill out your ballot?
Uh, and I'll just put your name on it.
I'm going to vote for whoever.
And let's say I don't care.
I don't care one way or another.
And I'm like, sure.
Yeah, go ahead.
Now that's illegal, right?
That's illegal.
Should it be?
Should that be illegal?
That's my vote.
If I, if I want to, you say that should be illegal.
I say no.
Because that was my vote.
I voted.
I don't care.
And I also voted that I want my brother.
or whoever, to have my vote.
Now, I get that that's technically illegal, and I understand the reason it's illegal.
I understand.
You don't have to sell me on the logic of it.
I understand.
I'm just saying that there might be a lot of these answers that are in that category that, even if it's technically illegal, it's not going to be something you care about.
I wouldn't care about it, honestly.
So, but you could pretty well find out if the election of 2020 was rigged using a variant on this methodology.
And here's the funny part.
Why did nobody think of this before?
You know why I would not have thought of this to do an actual survey?
Because I never would have imagined that anybody would answer honestly.
It never would have occurred to me that you could ask somebody if they committed a major, you know, illegal act They would say, oh yeah, oh yeah, I was doing some illegal acts.
Yeah, put my name down there for illegal acts.
Never would have imagined it, but apparently you can do it.
All right, here's, uh, yeah, as you know, uh, when Biden runs against Trump, he doesn't run based on Trump's record.
He scares you.
So first he did the fighting people hoax and sold that to half the country, and then he became president.
Biden did.
But now that Biden has totally shit the bed in terms of his performance and wide open immigration and crime in the cities and two wars going on that we think might be a little bit optional, he can't really sell his performance.
His Bidenomics thing wasn't working.
So you all know, no doubt about it, that they're going to be selling the scare tactic about Trump, right?
Says to me, Trump is the devil.
Trump will snap his fingers and half of humanity will die.
Why can't you see how obvious it is that he's Thanos?
Ree!
Ree!
You know that's going to be their whole campaign.
Ree!
Ree!
He's so scary.
So here's what... I'll get to say it a hundred times.
Mockery is the way forward.
Mockery is the way forward.
And I even have a name for it.
The Hilarious Hysteria.
So if you were going to put a name on the Democrat strategy for election, it's the Hilarious Hysteria strategy.
They have to crank the hysteria up past Hitler, because you know what?
It won't work.
Hitler!
We're so used to Hitler now, and you know, especially after we saw Hamas, we saw the atrocities, it feels like the whole thing seems ridiculous, calling Trump Hitler.
It just seems hilarious.
And so I would ask you to treat it not seriously.
You should mock it.
Mock it.
Mock it.
Because it's not real.
It's not based on, you know, anything.
It's literally Biden and the Democrats hallucinating a hilarious hysteria.
Hilarious hysteria.
It's sticky.
Because hilarious and hysteria are kind of close.
So just hold that in mind.
The hilarious hysteria strategy.
See if you can make a stick.
All right, I saw an allegation about Elizabeth Warren online that I think is false.
I'll put this out to you.
And Vivek Ramaswamy commented on it, so that made it more newsworthy.
But somebody posted the following, which I believe to be false.
So I'll ask for a fact check on this.
The claim was that Elizabeth Warren's salary in the Senate is $285,000 a year, but she has a $67 million net worth.
Now, I asked my Amazon digital assistant, what is Elizabeth Warren's net worth, and it told me $8 million.
$8 million.
Now, $8 million, you know, would be enough to raise an eyebrow.
It's like, hmm, how'd you get $8 million?
But it's not outside the realm of something she could have, you know, invested plus the time she was working privately.
Yeah, maybe, you know, maybe you can get to 8 million, but you can't really get to 67 million.
You can't get to 67 million with your side, with your side investments.
So, can somebody do a fact check on that?
I don't think it's anywhere near 67 million.
That sounds like a lie.
What do you think?
Oh, books.
Yeah, she had some books.
So, yeah, if you had the books in there, I don't know what else they can take money for.
Can they take money for speaking engagements when they're in Senate?
Probably not supposed to.
They can?
They can take speaking engagements for pay.
Are you serious?
It's completely illegal for a senator to get paid by a company for a speaking engagement.
Oh my God, I just assumed that wasn't... I just assumed they didn't do it, or that it was leased against the Senate rules.
Wow.
All right.
Well, I'd need a fact check on that too, but Vivek says it's a sign of corruption, and I'd say it very well might be, but I'd get a fact check on our network.
I don't believe it.
All right.
Trump is hilarious on Chris Christie.
I love the fact that Trump is calling Christie fab.
I don't know.
Like, Trump himself has been the recipient of just the worst body shaving you've ever seen, you know, for years and years.
But he still has the balls to make fun of Chris Christie's physical fitness.
I mean, that That takes, you gotta have a little chutzpah or something to do that, but he does.
So he says on a Truth Post today about Christie's, not fit for office, mentally or physically.
He shows a picture of him, which was unflattering.
He said, we need strong people not suffering from a harsh terminal disease, TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Now I do like the fact that Trump is hammering the Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Because that is the better way to go than to go against each of the individual accusations.
Because the accusations are crazy shit.
He's going to become a dictator and blah blah blah.
He's going to take your democracy away.
I'm going to take your democracy away.
Snap my fingers, half of you will die.
So yeah, let's mock that.
So Trump's on the right.
He's following the right vein here.
To mock it for what it is.
There's a viral video going around with a bunch of Young men saying that they have no friends, no one to call, no one cares about them.
They're basically lonely and feel that nobody cares about them.
I saw Mike Cernovich say they should do something about it.
For example, they could join a church or join a cigar club and basically do something to go meet some people.
To which I have a little bit of pushback.
I asked Mike on the Axe platform.
Do you have any other suggestions besides church and smoking cigars?
I mean, I like where you're going on this.
I like the direction of it, but I don't want to take up smoking or change my religion, make a friend.
Do you have an easier way to do that?
Pickleball.
There you go.
However, I think that the larger story, no matter what you do, if you're a man, I'm going to go with Chris Rock's framing of this.
Chris Rock says, and I paraphrase, the only people who get unconditional love are women and dogs, and if you're a man, you better provide value to somebody, because you will be evaluated on the value you provide.
You don't get automatic love like a dog or a woman.
I'm not comparing women to dogs.
Don't do that to me.
You know I'm not.
So, I agree with that completely.
And my recommendation, besides joining a cigar club or going to church, would be, why are you useless?
Like, why are you doing nothing that anybody wants?
Why are you adding no value to the world?
That's what I'd ask.
Go add some value.
If you had the kind of job where you were killing it, you don't think you'd have some co-worker friends?
If you were doing something for the world or some charity thing or whatever, you don't think there'd be plenty of people who found you valuable?
I think you would.
One of the things I accepted, maybe in my 20s, I realized that all men are worthless and that I was one.
Meaning what Chris Rock said, we're all worthless until we do something.
And at first I thought, well that's terribly unfair.
Why is it that I'm only worthwhile if I do something useful?
Why is that?
Why can't I just be valued?
But over time I said to myself, would you really want to change places with somebody who is valued without adding value?
Do you want to be valued just for existing?
I'm not sure that doesn't feel as male as it should.
In other words, I'm not comfortable with it.
But I don't know if I was just trained that way.
Maybe society just trained me.
I've got to be useful for my parents or something.
But I'm actually very comfortable with the fact that I have no value whatsoever unless I'm providing it in the moment.
And I'll even go further.
I don't think that any value I've provided in the past Should travel with me.
I really don't.
I think if I'm not doing something useful at the moment, you should judge me, even if I did something you liked last year.
If I'm not doing anything now, why not?
I'm still healthy.
Now, if I were not healthy, then okay, that's a different standard, right?
But if I'm perfectly healthy, and I had decided just to retire, because I can, right?
I have the resources.
I could just not work every day.
Should I ask you to respect me if I am perfectly healthy, I'm perfectly capable of contributing to the country, and I don't?
Would you respect that?
I hope not.
I wouldn't respect it myself.
So, yeah, men have a different standard, but honestly, it's one of the things I like about being a man.
I'm not complaining about that at all.
I like the fact that I have to act to create value.
That gives me a purpose, a direction, a very clear statement of what needs to be done next.
Do something useful.
It's easy.
All right, Representative Dean Phillips, who's running for president.
We're trying to get the Democratic nomination against all odds.
He says that the potential impeachment inquiry to President Biden could make him unelectable.
Yeah, could make him unelectable.
Now, I think Dean Phillips is going out on quite a limb here, that there's something that could make Joe Biden unelectable.
I don't know about that.
I have a suspicion that if Jill Biden took Joe Biden to the taxidermy shop, had him stuffed, and took him home, he'd still win by two points.
So I'm not really sure there's anything that makes him disqualified.
I mean, if the fact that he doesn't have a functional brain and is unlikely to survive his term in office started two wars open the border and there's rampant crime everywhere.
If that's not enough, I don't think the impeachment inquiry is going to put it over the edge.
Right.
I see what he's saying because he's running against them.
So you say that kind of thing.
But no, I don't think the impeachment inquiry would make any difference when you're running somebody who may or may not have already been to the taxidermist.
You can't tell by looking at him.
I don't know.
Has he been to the taxidermist yet?
Or is that next week?
I can't tell by looking at him.
So if you're listening and not watching, oh man, did you miss a good imitation of Joe Biden?
Yeah, it was great.
Well, I guess there's some new legislation up that will take away whatever rights we have left to privacy.
And it would allow the government to use any physical device in the country to spy on anybody they want, basically.
So hotels, libraries, your coffee shop Wi-Fi, they would all be open to the government's being able to intercept your communications.
Now, I thought they already had that.
I'm seeing people raise the alarm that, oh, this is a new level of looking into your life.
I thought this was the old level.
Are you telling me there's something the government couldn't get access to with a warrant?
Now, some are saying that this is warrant-less.
That the Patriot Act and whatever this is would be warrantless?
So they could just listen in just looking for something?
Looking for a terrorist or something?
Yeah?
I don't know.
This is a little more technical than I understand at the moment.
But I'm less concerned about losing my privacy than most people because I believe that I haven't had any.
Like, I don't feel I lost anything.
Because I feel privacy went away a long time ago.
The only thing that you have to keep you private is being uninteresting.
That's it.
The minute you're interesting, either because you're a politician, or a billionaire, or you've done something wrong, and you've become interesting, well then all your privacy is gone.
You don't have a chance.
I mean, there's going to be whistleblowers, and you're going to have your accountants take some money to release your tax returns, you know, all the stuff that happened to Trump.
And now, I guess, Prosecutor Jack Smith has Trump's personal cell phone, and they're taking off all of his locations, like everything he's ever done in his life that the phone tells you, all of his DMs.
Does that seem fair to you?
Do you want to live in a country where the government can take your phone, and without looking for something specific, would have access to just Your whole life?
Everything you've said, everything you've done?
Well, here I think is where Trump is going to have the last laugh.
Because I don't know this for sure, but I believe Trump has had a decades-long policy of not putting dumb shit in writing.
Am I right?
For his entire working career, He's had a good practice of not putting dumb shit in writing.
So I'll bet they could look through his phone forever and not find anything damning.
I'll bet there's nothing there.
Literally nothing.
Now, one of the things I want to do is find out where he was when he was doing certain things.
I guess somehow they think that'll help him.
Maybe.
But I doubt that will be the difference between prosecution and not.
All right.
There's a San Francisco politician, somebody on the, what do you call it, Board of Supervisors, who says that the homeless crisis in San Francisco is absolutely the result of capitalism.
Capitalism is the problem.
And he's trying to cut the funding to the police force to fix this problem caused by capitalism.
Now, this story is not funny unless you see the picture of the supervisor.
Now who's a college graduate?
A lawyer.
But I don't have readily the picture with me.
But why is it he looks so dumb?
He looks like he came from Central Casting.
He looks like a Central Casting guy.
He looks like he was cast for Dumb and Dumber.
Like, his actual face looks like the dumbest face you've ever seen in your life.
Now, I know he's not dumb.
Because, you know, he's a lawyer, so he can't be dumb and be a lawyer.
But why does he look so dumb?
Is that just my... Am I having just a subjective reaction because of what he says that sounds dumb?
Or does he actually look dumb and he is dumb?
On some level that allows you to pass the I guess the lawyer board or whatever it is.
I don't know.
Sort of an open question.
Have you seen the guy who's the head of Hamas?
The military head of Hamas?
The guy who still lives in Gaza?
They haven't got yet?
Have you seen a picture of that guy?
You just take one look at him and you say, okay, I would not let you babysit my children, if you know what I mean.
He looks exactly like who he is.
He looks like the Prince of Darkness.
You look at his face and you go, holy shit, I would not want to see you in a dark place.
Meanwhile, apparently the Biden administration is quietly building a virtual wall on the border, meaning with high-tech surveillance towers and whatnot.
So I think they got drones and towers and listening devices and video and whatnot.
That's not too unlike what Trump was going to do.
You remember Trump's plan?
I think he said it directly.
He said, we want a physical wall where a physical wall makes sense.
And where it's more, you know, doesn't make as much sense financially, you would do more remote, remote virtual stuff, but that's all you need.
So is Biden just basically doing exactly Trump's plan, but acting like he's not?
Because you can do the virtual stuff and it's less noticeable, so you could actually be doing some serious things that aren't quite complete yet.
But Biden is also building the wall in places where a wall makes sense.
He's putting a wall.
In places where a wall doesn't make sense, he's putting virtual stuff.
I think that was exactly what Trump was going to do.
Like, they might have argued about which section should be which, but it's the same plan.
He just isn't doing it fast enough.
And, of course, the fact that we're just letting people in like crazy.
Now, here's the thing about the border that I don't understand.
The Republicans are treating it like it's a border security problem.
And you know it's not, right?
The reason that people are coming in, you know, as if there's no restrictions whatsoever, is not because we're incapable of stopping them physically.
It's because they're coming in under a legal umbrella.
Meaning they can walk right up to the front door, say, hey, I'm applying for asylum, and our laws say that we have to treat it like it's real.
And then we process them, release them into the country, and say, hey, come back, and we'll check on you in a few years.
So we have a legislation policy problem that we're treating it like it's a border security problem.
There's no wall that would stop that.
There's no point in building a wall if our policy is to leave the door open.
And the policy is very much to leave the door open to anybody who says asylum.
So, why is it that the Republicans don't frame it that way?
Why are they framing it like a physical border problem?
Is it because they can get more political mileage out of it that way?
Because it looks more stupid?
The only thing I can think of is that there must be too many Republicans who favor keeping the asylum rules the way they are.
Is that possible?
Why don't we hear every single day that Matt Gaetz, and I'll use Matt Gaetz, do you know I say Matt Gaetz?
Yeah, because Thomas Massey, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, there's like three fucking people who are doing work for us, us the American people.
There are only three people doing work.
I don't even know what the rest of them do.
How many senators could you even name?
What are they doing?
Yeah, Rand Paul.
Right.
Massey, Rand Paul, Thomas Massey, Matt Gaetz.
You only hear about the same half a dozen.
Everything.
The rest of them are just taking votes and drinking martinis and sleeping with their mistresses and stuff.
How can you support Republicans when you're not aware of any Republican who's pushing to change the asylum law?
Name me the name of the Republican who's trying to change the asylum law.
Rick Scott went by.
Mark Rubio went by.
How hard are they trying?
Somebody said Grassley.
But there's nobody whose name you can identify, right, as like the one who's really out there every day trying to change it?
Remember when Matt Gaetz tried to do anything?
He was all over the news.
Right?
When Matt Gaetz wants to make news, he's all over the news on any point whatsoever.
But our biggest problem is this stupid asylum law.
And there's no name associated with trying to change it.
Nobody.
Not one person wants to put their name out there as, I'm the one trying to change it.
You know, I'm going to die on this hill.
There's something about, am I wrong, that there's something about the entire story that's not adding up.
It doesn't add up that the Republicans are not going after that asylum thing with 100% enthusiasm.
It's like, oh yeah, I heard Ted Cruz mention it once, and I feel like, didn't Mark Rubio say something about that once?
That's it?
That's the team that many of you are supporting?
You're supporting the team that doesn't even Basically make a squeak about the main thing they're complaining about.
And they act like they need a wall.
Can you ask any of those assholes how a wall is going to stop people walking in through the asylum front door?
How is that going to make any difference?
We're not even on the right topic, most of the time.
All right, so you can't be happy about Republicans.
Yeah, let me say that as clearly as possible.
If you think Democrats are the reason we don't have border security, you're not paying attention.
You're not paying attention.
It is Republicans.
It has to be both or else it wouldn't be.
You just wouldn't be there.
It has to be both.
There's no other way that I can explain it.
Now, if you said that, but the Republicans aren't there every day trying to change that asylum thing, then I'd say, oh, oh, I guess, okay, that's a Democrat problem.
Because the Republicans are really working on the right part of this.
They've got leverage.
They're going for the thing that makes a difference.
But they're not?
They're not.
So how do you call this a Democrat problem?
I don't know.
I think the Republicans could do a lot better on that.
At least in the framing of it, if not the actual result.
All right.
Yeah, no wall, but we're going to keep giving money to Ukraine to build their wall, as others have said.
So Hunter is trying to get his gun charges removed.
His arguments are, let's say, partly that he should be immune under the prior agreement that observers said was too lenient, and then the judge threw it out.
But he thinks that should still protect them.
That's probably a weak argument.
But he also says Second Amendment.
He's going to make a Second Amendment argument for why he should have been allowed to have a gun, even as an addict.
What do you think of that?
Weirdly, I'm very sympathetic with Hunter Biden on the gun charges.
I'm very sympathetic because I'm a Second Amendment person.
And if you tell me that I can't have a gun because somebody else said I'm an addict, I say, no.
I have the right to be an addict, and I have a right to own a gun.
I have both rights.
I'm sorry.
Now, it might be illegal for me to buy a drug, depending on the drug.
I get that.
But I have the freedom to decide to be a drug addict, and I have the freedom to own a gun.
You can't take either one of those away from me.
So, I'm weirdly on Hunter's side on this.
I'm weirdly on his side.
Now, let me change it.
I'm going to modify my statement.
I'm 100% on his side.
On the gun charge.
The other stuff, he's on his own.
But on the gun charge?
No.
Sorry.
He's almost exactly the kind of guy who needs a gun.
Because he probably had legitimate security interests.
I would bet.
Now, is it dangerous?
Is it dangerous that drug addicts have guns?
Yes, yes, yes.
Is it dangerous that any of one of you have a gun?
Yes, yes, it's dangerous.
Guns are dangerous.
That's why we have them.
We have them because they're dangerous.
That's the whole point of a gun, right?
So yeah, I'm just going to go completely on Hunter's side of the gun.
All right, but the law has to do what the law has to do.
Reading scores in America apparently for reading, math, and science, so all three, have been declining a lot in our schools from 2012 until now.
So 11 years of continuous, nearly continuous, was a little blip, but basically scores going down for those years.
So I saw this in a tweet, in a post by Chamath Palihapitiya.
Well, I hope I'm saying that right.
He's one of the all-in podcast investor billionaire guys.
And he notes that there are some reasonable guesses why.
You know, he says on mobile phones, social media apps, and gaming could be part of the reason.
But he says his best guess is that the justice and wokeness that degraded expelled math and science education in American schools because it made some people feel bad.
So he thinks it's basically lower standards and a change in priorities.
Could be.
Could be all of those things.
Could be all of those things a little bit.
But I'm going to add two more possibilities.
Number one, you'd have to check the mix of people.
Because it seems to me, if you were to look at my local schools, and you compare them to 10 years ago, There would be a far higher number of students who don't speak English who are in the same class.
How in the world do you compare that?
If the only thing that changed, if the only thing that changed was my town, in my town the only thing that changed was there are more non-English speaking people in the class.
That's it.
Do you think that the performance of that class as an average is the same as it was 10 years ago?
It couldn't be.
There's not the slightest chance it could be the same, even if every student did better and tried harder and the teachers were great.
The average is going to be down.
So what you would look for, I'd look for things like maybe schools that don't have any extra immigration.
Any extra non-English speakers?
I would look at also the mix of how many people from low income have been added to the mix.
Is there any difference there?
I would look to also, here's one that nobody mentioned.
You know how easy it is to cheat in school now with smartphones?
You know what a kid does to do homework today?
I don't want to be the one to break it to you, but your child isn't doing their homework.
You know, they're just looking it up online, right?
And writing down the answers.
Even for math.
Well, one of the things I learned years ago, helping kids with homework, you know, there would be like a math question or something.
And so I would Google it.
And it turns out the exact question is almost always Google-able.
The exact question.
So even an exact math question, you can just Google the answer.
Yeah, so how many kids do you think go behind a closed door in their bedroom, and they've got two hours of homework, it's their entire night, and they have a choice of working hard and trying to do it on their own and learning something, or they could just look it up and be done in 20 minutes and go play with their friends.
What are they going to do?
What are they going to do?
They're going to do what any normal human would do.
They're going to cheat on their homework, and then go play with their friends.
And then when the test comes, they don't do so well, because they didn't do any homework.
Now, I think homework is way overdone, and it probably should be closer to zero homework, because the science doesn't really support the homework working that much.
But I've got a feeling that the smartphones are working during the tests, I think cheating is just more advanced.
So there's a lot going on there, but basically it's all bad.
But I would also add to this, kids are getting less exercise.
That's bad for your brain.
Our food supply is poison.
That's bad for your brain.
Kids are fatter and less active.
That's bad for your brain.
And I'm gonna add this one.
When I was in school, I was told and I believed That working hard and doing well in school was largely a guarantee of a good life.
Almost a guarantee.
Most of you in my age range would say the same.
If you stay then in jail, you know, it wasn't drug addiction wasn't a big thing back then or at least we didn't talk about it.
It was just do well in school.
And stay out of jail.
You're going to be fine.
So I did well in school.
I stayed in a jail.
Did fine.
You know, plenty of obstacles like everybody has, but if you've got that going for you, you know, no criminal record and you build some skills, you'll be fine.
Now, imagine you're a kid in school today, and you're looking at what the real world looks like, and then you're looking at what they're teaching you, and you don't see any connection between what they're teaching you and what the real world requires or needs or seems important.
And then you add robots and AI, and you don't even know if you grow up if you'll have a job.
You don't even know if jobs will exist.
You don't even know if the country will exist.
Like, literally everything is up to who knows.
How in the world does a kid in this world say, if I work really hard today, this will clearly lead to my good future?
Because most of them think they don't have a future.
They don't think they'll be able to buy a house.
Live as well as their parents.
So there's something broken about the incentive system of school.
Then you add on the teachers unions which are just a holy mess.
So what's wrong with schools?
Let me tell you what's wrong with schools.
Everything.
Everything.
That's what's wrong.
The reason we can't identify the reason is because it's everything.
Every single part of the school Experience is degraded compared to what it used to be.
Every single part, from the lessons, to the teachers, the priorities, to the smartphones, to the bad diets, to the lack of exercise, lack of sunlight, everything is worse.
So yeah, grades are going to go down.
But also it's going to be because they're measuring it wrong.
All right, so here's your perfect end of 2023 story.
We're all following the story of the three college presidents, UPenn, Harvard, and MIT, who did not give satisfying answers to Congress about the verbal and intimidating tactics of some of the protesters that were very bad news for the Jewish students in those colleges, very intimidating, and they were asked, you know, Does the college allow that kind of thing?
And they were, well, it depends on the context.
And then people said, OK, if you're going to say it depends, and you're not going to say that it's completely off the table, then you must be fired.
So the University of Penn, that president stepped down under pressure.
But it looks like, as of today, The president of Harvard is not going to quit and has the backing of her board.
So Harvard's going to stay strong.
And then MIT, we haven't heard anything from.
But let me read you a little post by Joel Pollack, who makes the following observation that will be your perfect 2023 NCAP.
If you want to know everything about 2023, It's going to be in this one very tight post by Joel Pollack.
You ready?
It's hard to avoid a conversation about bias when three academics said the same thing on antisemitism, but the only one, Penn, is the only one who isn't Jewish, MIT, or black, Harvard.
Could be just a coincidence.
It's hard to avoid observing.
Did we apply different standards?
Yeah.
Of the three, the only one fired is the white woman who wasn't Jewish.
Now, I understand the Jewish president, because the issue itself was about anti-Semitism, and nobody in the world believes that a Jewish college president is anti-Semitic, or would support it in any fashion whatsoever.
So that's one where you can tell yourself, okay, the actual Jewish president probably just had a bad day, right?
Because there's no way that internally, you know, and internally, you know, that she would not put up with anything like that.
But, you know, her answer was pretty bad.
But as far as Harvard, Yeah, I think we see no possibility that a black female Harvard president would ever be forced to resign.
But there's more on that.
So, according to Bill Ackman, who's been the major, I guess the most notable activist, trying to get all three presidents fired, but especially Harvard, he says that he's hearing from reporters That part of the reason that Harvard is deciding not to let their president go is because they don't want to cave to Bill Ackman.
And I thought, damn it.
Stop making me agree with you.
As soon as I heard that, I thought to myself, damn it.
I feel like I agree with Harvard.
I feel like I agree with Harvard.
Because you know what is as bad as their poor statements in public?
Having one fucking guy decide who their president is.
That's no good.
And his complaint, by the way, is their speech.
Not only their speech, but the speech on the campus.
Now, I'm not unaware that the real question is the bullying and abuse, not the speech.
I get it.
I get that there's a difference.
But we're talking about a free speech situation and you've got one activist who's just really good at it, who's going to cause maybe these actions.
And Harvard is saying, we're not run by this one activist.
And if you're going to force us to do it, we're going to do it.
We're going to not do it just because you can't force us to do it.
You know, I don't hate that reasoning.
I'm not sure that's the only reason, of course.
I mean, it's more than that, but I don't hate that reasoning.
I don't think he should force them to do something they don't want to do.
You know, even though I think they should.
Like, I agree with Acknow, but I don't like him forcing it.
Yeah, there is something to that pushback that I don't hate.
Here's some more pushback.
You know, Cenk Uygur, who's running for president on the Democrat side, and he gives this advice.
He says, can everyone please stop the dumb, quote, from the river to the sea chant.
It is incredibly hurtful to our Jewish brothers and sisters.
It's also incredibly counterproductive to protecting Palestinians.
Do not chant something that majority thinks is a call for genocide.
Not complicated.
Do you agree?
Would you agree?
That even if you understand Then it means something different to the people who are chanting it, which is questionable.
But even if you believe that, isn't the best advice to shut the fuck up and stop doing it?
Chant something else.
Chant something that's more on point, that the people you're chanting to, give them a chance to say yes to it.
Don't chant something that we can't say yes to.
We just can't say yes to that.
So what's the point of chanting it?
You're just hurting yourself.
You're turning yourself into like genocidal looking crazy people and then asking us to agree with you.
How does that work?
That's not going to work.
So you say to yourself, well, nobody's going to push back against that opinion.
I mean, that's, first of all, you know, Cenk, it's a brave opinion.
He's, you know, given that he's a Democrat.
So I give him credit for the opinion, but there was some pushback.
Didn't really see this coming.
And it's a pushback from somebody who identifies as Palestinian.
Afif Agrabawi.
So, Afif responds to Cenk and says, usually I agree with you, Cenk, but as a Palestinian, I'd like you to avoid tone policing us.
I'd like you to avoid tone policing us.
He says, it's our slogan and we can chant it if we want to.
We could have chanted anything and Zionists would still claim we were calling for their genocide.
No differently.
This was the moment I lost all empathy for the Palestinians.
I didn't want to, but we want to keep saying this because it's our chant.
Okay.
So I'm going to say I'm going to agree with Afif.
It's your chant, and you do get to say it.
And free speech, you know, there's an argument that if you're not bullying, it's just words and it's not different than other people who said things like bomb Iran, right?
It's not that different.
Glenn Greenwald makes that argument better than I do.
But if this is the way you want it, if you want to be able to say that chant, Knowing exactly how it's received, okay?
But don't ask for any help, and don't ask for any empathy.
Because you know what?
If you can't do this one fucking little thing for me, you can't do this one fucking little thing, this one fucking thing, you get nothing.
You get nothing.
Because the world doesn't work like this.
The world doesn't work, I want to do whatever I want, and you've got to do what I want?
No.
The world doesn't work like that.
You can do anything you want, but don't expect me to give a fuck about you, if that's your attitude.
If you're not going to play a little bit with us, us being everybody, then no, I don't care.
Honestly, I can feel my empathy just drain out of my body, because I don't believe this is an individual, rogue opinion.
I'll bet you that if you talk to the people who are doing the chanting, they would say the same thing.
They'd probably say, don't police our tone.
We want to chant this.
We are completely aware of how it's received, and we want to do it.
To which I say, free speech.
Also, don't ask us for a penny for rebuilding.
Don't ask us to tell Israel to do a ceasefire.
Don't ask us to put any pressure on Israel in any way.
Because you just wrote your own ticket.
If your ticket is anti-social, by design, it's meant to be anti-social.
Because when I say social, I mean you put some weight on what other people think about the situation.
That's what social means.
You're giving them some weight to their opinions.
If you give no weight to the other side's opinion, even such a simple valid statement like this, that it causes things to get worse, you get nothing.
You get nothing.
So good job, Afif.
Wow.
To the extent that I imagine this is a generalizable feeling, and I suspect it is, I suspect this is a generalizable opinion.
That's where we are.
So in a weird way, both sides are getting what they want.
Do you understand that?
Israel is getting what it wants, in the sense that it's having its way with Hamas and Gaza at the moment.
Well, the Palestinians are also getting what they want.
Because they want the complaint more than the solution.
There's no indication they want a solution, and there never has been.
There's something about The importance of the complaint that is sticky in a way that my Western mind doesn't understand.
Like, I don't understand why you would keep slapping yourself in the face and then complaining about getting slapped in the face.
You've got to do a little bit of something on your own.
A little bit.
I just don't see it.
All right, James O'Keefe has the goods on IBM.
I guess there's a video they got in which the CEO of IBM is saying directly that if they don't discriminate against white people in their hiring, that they lose their bonuses.
Now that's being touted as a big story, that IBM is, the CEO will punish his managers If they don't increase their hiring of especially black candidates.
Now, and he says directly also that Asians don't count because they're not underrepresented.
So, so he's basically telling his people directly you disfavor hiring white nations and favor Hispanics and black and that they will lose their bonuses if they don't discriminate in that way.
Now, People were reacting to that story like it's something about IBM.
It's not about IBM.
That's every corporation in America for the last 40 years.
Every corporation in America for the last 40 years, identical.
There is nothing about IBM that's unusual.
There's a video, so you have that.
But that is the conversation in every boardroom.
Everywhere and people are just figuring this out I've been I've been you know for the first 30 years of my career I didn't say anything about it either because you you know, you would be ostracized if you mention it, but now I can because you know X is a free speech platform and Livestream apparently I can say it.
I haven't been canceled yet So, yes every major American company Everyone, everyone has overtly discriminated against white people, and they continue to.
Now, and by the way, this has never been hidden.
The fact that we're treating it like it's a, there's a whistleblower, and there's an undercover investigation, and we got it, we got a hold of this video, is completely misleading.
So my problem with this story is that you're going to get the impression it's an IBM problem.
It's not an IBM problem.
In fact, I don't have any special bad feeling about IBM from this story whatsoever.
Do you think the CEO could have kept his job if he had not pushed this direction?
The answer is no.
Everybody is operating under their self-interest and Yeah, there's the CEO was literally telling people not to hire people like him.
That's how weird it is.
Because presumably, Indian Americans are not underrepresented in tech jobs.
And he's he seems to have Indian heritage.
So yeah, this is a universal practice.
And black Americans are just finding out.
Imagine if you're a black American and you're just finding out this year that for 40 years there's been massive discrimination in your favor.
Massive.
Every big company.
All the time.
All the time.
40 years.
You didn't know about it.
That's why I keep saying that the real solution here is not racism and working on equity directly.
All you have to do is teach children how to be successful.
And then this all goes away.
All right.
Let's see, the Hootie Rebels hit a Norwegian flag tanker.
They sent a missile at a tanker and it's in a key part of the, there's a choke point there in the Middle East.
So I don't know what all this means except I saw the Amuse account, Amuse.
Reminding us that Biden removed the hoodies from the terror list so that the Iran and the U.S.
could funnel a billion dollars to the terror group just days after taking office.
So the accusation here is that Biden went easy on the hoodies and they got a bunch of money and then they used some of it to send a missile into a Norwegian tanker in the Straits.
So...
There might be a lot more to that story that we don't know, but Iran is certainly getting busy.
So, did it miss any stories?
You... what?
Yeah, we talked about Fareed Zakaria slamming the colleges for being racist.
I think we got all the big stories today.
Yeah, the point about IBM, yeah, just to complete the circle, thank you.
Yeah, the reason IBM was targeted for their discrimination practices is because they decided they would not advertise on the X platform.
Because X was associating their ads with bad content.
But it turns out they're a racist organization.
So, you know, that's the reason I'm not picking on IBM completely is that they are sort of victims of public opinion.
You know, IBM could buck the trend, but they're not.
It's not like Elon Musk who owns Twitter.
So he has the freedom to do what he thinks is right and hope it works out in the long run.
If you're a public company, you don't really have that kind of freedom.
So there's a reason that they get forced into becoming racist organizations.
They're forced by the public.
What?
Thank you.
Did anybody leave X because Alex Jones came back?
I doubt it.
Has there been any word about whether Democrats have left X?
I haven't heard any statistics on that.
My understanding is that traffic and eyeballs are up, but I don't know if there's any net change in the mix.
Hey guys, on YouTube, you can ignore Henry Cruz.
He's a troll.
You don't have to respond to him like he's serious.
He's the all capital.
There's one guy who just yells at me in all caps the entire show.
But he doesn't look serious.
He looks possibly drunk or maybe has some mental capacity issues.
Even Scott lives in a small bubble.
Would I ever deny that?
The bubble is a universal problem.
We don't have a way of not being in the bubble.
The best you can do is continually police yourself, you know, and pop your bubbles as they happen.
But you can't really not be in a bubble.
We just don't live in that world.
1666?
No, I haven't read that.
What about the story on Turkish MP who got a heart attack seconds after Criticizing Israel.
I don't know about that story.
Scott, would you join Tucker Carlson's network?
I don't think he has a network, does he?
I thought he just had a show that was just gonna be him.
Is Tucker gonna have, oh, he's gonna have other content?
Oh.
Oh, that's interesting.
So you're telling me that Tucker, Tucker TV will have more than one creator on it.
Interesting.
Where do you think Tucker's going to get his talent from?
Megyn Kelly is part of it?
Did that really happen?
Oh, that's interesting.
Yeah, because I was wondering who is independent who would do that?
Because the people who are big names already have big salaries.
So yeah, I don't think you're going to get the Daily Wire people to move because they're doing fine.
I don't think you're going to get anybody who's happy on Fox to move because they're doing fine.
Well, does it seem like I would be a perfect person for the Tucker Carlson network?
What do you think?
Would I be a good fit?
You know, there's a there's a plus and a minus there.
I suspect I already have almost zero.
Well, let me ask you.
Is there anybody who identifies as Democrat or left of center who is watching this live stream right now?
So identify yourself if you're a Democrat or left of center.
better.
Because I'll bet it's none.
Me.
Yeah, I see one yes, another yes, yes.
But are you Democrats and also left of center?
Or are you like right in the middle Democrats?
Because I don't think I have any like super progressive Antifa BLM people watching.
Middle, middle, middle, yeah.
So I've got a scattering.
So it doesn't look like it would change my mix of people who see my material.
Wouldn't change my mix.
But I would hate being siloed in a way that made it harder for somebody to see it.
That would be a tough decision.
But I also don't think I want to have a professionally produced show.
I'd probably have to increase my quality to be on anybody else's network.
I'm very much addicted to not increasing the quality of what I'm doing.
At least in production quality.
I will, actually, when Rumble Studio is up, I'll be able to do things like chyrons.
I'm gonna make a promise to you.
You know what the chyrons are, right?
The little words that are at the bottom of the screen when a news person is talking?
I will have the funniest chyrons.
That's right.
My chyrons will be funnier than your chyrons.
And so as soon as I get that going, I will do that.
But that's just for fun.
Best reframe?
Is Jesus.
OK.
AI is already showing signs of being lazy.
Yeah.
You know, I might be a contrarian on AI.
But it seems to me that the current version of AI is trending toward more useless and not more useful.
Does anybody else feel that?
Because I'm hearing things like the super prompts no longer work for the newer models.
Now, if your super prompts have stopped working, the quality of AI going forward is way degraded, because that means you don't know if the question you're asking We'll get you the right response.
The other thing we see is that it's very insistent on sometimes giving you fake news.
It's very consistent about that.
And it doesn't look like that can be fixed.
Because wherever that's coming from, you know, whatever it causes it to lie to you, or to give you two different answers and two different questions, you can ask the same question twice and get a different answer.
So if it can't give you something you would regard as accurate or reliable, it can't give you any opinions, so the two things it can't give you is a fact you would believe or an opinion.
So no opinions and no facts.
What's left?
No opinions and no facts.
There's nothing left.
You can't even determine if it's searched well.
Yeah, so here's what completely made me lose it.
When I asked it to tell me the news stories in the last seven years, in which the government has lost or destroyed, or in any other way made unavailable, some important records, digital, email, etc.
It just couldn't do it.
It just couldn't do it.
And that wasn't really a hard request.
He was basically a search, you know, a Google search, but I wanted to not have to do a Google search on every term and try to remember the story and look forward to everything.
I thought, well, they'll pop right up with AI, but they didn't.
In fact, it's list of that stuff was completely.
So honestly, I haven't found anything to use it for, and I'm going to go further.
I can't imagine I will now.
I know.
I know what everybody's going to say.
But Scott, you're looking at their early version.
Don't you see that it's obvious that the problems you're talking about will obviously be solved by the newer versions?
To which I say, I used to think that.
But what I'm observing at the moment suggests there might be a wall.
There might be a cap.
And I'm going to go... Would you like to hear a provocative... Here's my provocative prediction.
AI will never be anything but a curiosity.
Meaning, you might have fun talking to it for five seconds, but it won't be interesting beyond that.
It won't be able to tell you what's true, because you won't trust it.
Just won't trust it.
And it won't be able to give you an opinion, because it's designed not to.
And it won't be able to tell you anything interesting, because it's designed to avoid those topics.
Because interesting means provocative.
It means people disagree.
If the only thing your AI is going to say is people disagree, that has no value.
You know how many times I've asked AI a question and all it does is say, well, people disagree on this.
That's not what I asked you.
I didn't ask you if people disagree.
You're not helping at all.
So honestly, I don't see any value in AI whatsoever.
Is that the most provocative prediction you've heard on AI?
I don't see any value to it, ever.
Now, dumb take, right?
Now, if you had asked me even one week ago, I would have said what you just said.
That's pretty dumb.
Like, you'd have to be the dumbest Person who had never lived in the real world to know that things start, you know, things start as low quality and then they rapidly improve.
And then say, look at the rate of improvement.
AI went from sketchy to what it is now really quickly.
So therefore, they'll keep doing that, right?
Nope.
No, I believe that AI will never be indistinguishable from a human.
And it will never be able to handle any service question that's complicated.
So I thought AI would be much better at solving customer service problems.
That I'd be able to say, oh, I've got this weird problem.
And then AI would say, no problem.
You know, unlike a human who would have to check with a supervisor and do research and get the wrong answer anyway.
I thought, well, the AI is just going to like solve all my customer service questions.
Wouldn't that be great?
No, the AI will never understand what you want well enough to give you the answer.
And if it did, it wouldn't have the authority to do it.
And they would try to talk you out of it.
It's just going to be a pain in the ass.
So now let me test it.
In the last 24 hours, how many of you did something with AI that was more impressive than a Google search that organized some stuff for you?
How many used AI in the last 24 hours to do something legitimate that you couldn't really easily do in another way?
I'm not counting coding.
Forget coding, because I'll give you coding.
If you're programming, it's useful, definitely.
So outside of coding, So you've used AI for something useful.
Give me some examples.
Give me an example, just like in one sentence.
Copy editing.
Math problems.
Just coding.
Etsy business.
Creating art.
I'll give you all those things.
I'll give you all of those things.
So it's good at summarizing.
So here's what it's good for.
Summarizing.
Coding.
Creating art that you didn't have to create yourself.
It's a better version of search sometimes, but not all the time.
And I don't think it'll ever be all the time.
Analytics.
How do you use it for analytics?
I think it's useless for analytics.
So I used it for one purpose, which is I built a little app, a GPT app, whatever they call it.
And it can find me a specific Gilbert comic by a keyword.
So it's proprietary.
I'm the only one who has it.
That was good.
That's pretty cool.
But I also could have done that another way.
There's another way to do it.
So basically, I told AI to search a text file that has, you know, some information about what each of the comics is about.
But I could have just opened that file and done a search.
It really didn't buy me that much.
So I will give you, coding is easier.
I'll give you some copy editing.
Check your grammar.
None of those are important.
They're just like minor, minor benefits.
So I'm going to stick with my prediction that AI will be a big disappointment.
I'm going to go further.
AGI will never happen.
AGI is the level above this.
That's like a generalized intelligence.
Definitely you'll get AI to win a chess.
You'll be good at math.
Maybe it'll be a better interface for dealing with some of your data, but not much else.
Not much else.
The best thing about AI is voice recognition.
Would you agree?
The voice recognition of AI is insanely good.
Like, that part's good.
Because I hate to talk to S-I-R-I, the name I want to say, Because it never understands what I have to say.
Well, how often do you talk to your phone if you do it all?
And it actually understands what you said.
If it's not weather or time, or set an alarm, usually it doesn't understand what I say.
